The title is: Bill Clinton: 'A Few Years Ago,' Obama Would Be 'Carrying Our Bags'

While the sentence in the article is like this:

"a few years ago, this guy (Obama) would have been carrying our bags."

This is about subjunctive mood in English. As Bill Clinton was talking about the past, "would have been" seems more appropriate. However, the title uses "would be", which is about the present or future, why?

The title is: Bill Clinton: 'A Few Years Ago,' Obama Would Be 'Carrying Our Bags'

While the sentence in the article is like this:

"a few years ago, this guy (Obama) would have been carrying our bags."

This is about subjunctive mood in English. As Bill Clinton was talking about the past, "would have been" seems more appropriate. However, the title uses "would be", which is about the present or future, why?

Click to expand...

"would be" refers to what he would be supposedly doing were the past situation the present.

"would have been" refers only to what he would supposedly have been doing in the past.

Nothing is missing but put into a simpler construction, he means:"would be" refers to what he would be supposedly doing if the past situation was (were to be) the present.

But the simple explanation to your question was given by waltern in post 2.
The sentence "A Few Years Ago, Obama Would Be Carrying Our Bags" has been shortened because of space as a headline and the grammar has suffered as a result.
So yes, you are right to be confused!